Flat-File versus GConf Backend?

[Onay]

What are the differences? I was using GConf, which seemed pretty fast, but it was missing a few features I wanted, so I switched to Flat-File. Things seem jerkier, but everything works.

[Deciare]

For quite a lot of people, there are some options that refuse to be set, some key bindings that won't stick after they're changed, and some plugins that can't be enabled at all with either the GConf or KDE configuration backend. Switching to the flat-file configuration backend usually solves those problems, so it's what I recommend. :)

As far as I know, there aren't noticeable performance differences between any of the backends.

[maniac]

For quite a lot of people, there are some options that refuse to be set, some key bindings that won't stick after they're changed, and some plugins that can't be enabled at all with either the GConf or KDE configuration backend. Switching to the flat-file configuration backend usually solves those problems, so it's what I recommend. :)

Please, please don't do that. Well, at least don't do that without filing a bug. It doesn't help at all in fixing bugs if they are just papered over by using another backend. Usually, disabling the DE integration should already be pretty sufficient to resolve problems - but again, don't forget to file a bug ;)
Anyway, I am _not_ aware of any problems with the Gconf backend ATM. Perhaps kconfig, but not Gconf. A reason for that is the good test coverage it got from Ubuntu. A bonus is that gconf and kconfig (with DE integration disabled) operate on exactly the same data set as compiz' own gconf and kconfig plugins.
What also should be mentioned is that flat-file and kconfig need a working inotify kernel interface (plus installed headers to build it), which is not available on certain Debian versions, to make ccsm changes being applied instantly. Gconf doesn't need that.


As far as I know, there aren't noticeable performance differences between any of the backends.
That's correct. Settings backends are rarely active; they shouldn't influence performance at all. Perhaps some settings were different, leading to seemingly different performance.

Onay, which were the features you were missing?

[Deciare]

I'll make note of specific problems as I see them. For months, I've used the flat-file backend exclusively, so I haven't had any problems. Though, the last time I tried the kconfig backend at someone else's request, I noticed that I wasn't able to set any keybindings in any plugin. As soon as I clicked Back and re-entered the same plugin's configuration page in ccsm, the bindings would have been reset to their previous (default?) values. Anyway, that was months ago, so it may not apply any longer.

It is probable that searching for "flat-file" on these forums will yield many results in the form of the problems that motivated people to recommend the flat-file backend. Since I'm not presently equipped to test any of them, though, (neither the gconf nor kconfig backends are installed on this system) filing sensible bug reports may be difficult.